Potts v. Amis
62 Wash. 2d 777, 384 P.2d 825, 1963 Wash. LEXIS 391 (1963)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An owner or occupier of land has a duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid injuring a licensee who is on the land with permission and whose presence is known, when the injury arises from the owner's active conduct rather than from a condition of the premises.
Facts:
- The plaintiff was a social guest at the defendant's summer home.
- The defendant was demonstrating the proper golf swing to the plaintiff using a golf club.
- After making several abbreviated practice swings, the defendant was told by the plaintiff that he could not understand the instructions.
- The defendant then turned and took a full-force swing with the club.
- On the upstroke, the defendant's club struck the plaintiff under the jaw, causing injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff filed a personal injury action against the defendant in a trial court.
- After a trial, the court found that the defendant had negligently struck the plaintiff but that the action was not willful or wanton.
- The trial court also found that the plaintiff had exercised ordinary care for his own safety.
- The trial court entered a judgment of dismissal for the defendant, holding that a host owes a social guest (licensee) only the duty not to willfully or wantonly injure him.
- The plaintiff (appellant) appealed the dismissal to the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a landowner's duty of care to a social guest (licensee) extend beyond refraining from willful or wanton misconduct to include exercising reasonable care when the injury is caused by the landowner's active conduct?
Opinions:
Majority - Rosellini, J.
Yes, a landowner's duty of care to a social guest extends to exercising reasonable care when the injury is caused by the landowner's active conduct. While the traditional rule limits a landowner's duty to a licensee to refraining from willful or wanton injury, that rule generally applies to injuries arising from the static condition of the premises. The court distinguishes such cases from those involving injuries caused by the landowner's affirmative activities. Citing the Restatement of Torts, legal scholars, and a modern trend in the law, the court holds that when a licensee's presence is known, the landowner must exercise reasonable care in carrying on activities on the land to avoid causing injury. The fortuitous circumstance that the injury occurred on the defendant's land should not relieve him of liability for his negligent actions.
Concurring - Hill, J.
Yes, the landowner owes a duty of reasonable care for his active conduct. The concurrence agrees with the majority's conclusion but argues the case is simpler based on the trial court's unchallenged findings. The trial court found the defendant committed an act of ordinary negligence and that the plaintiff exercised ordinary care for his own safety. Given these findings, liability should follow regardless of legal distinctions about premises liability. The fact that the injury occurred on the defendant's lawn is an immaterial, 'fortuitous circumstance' that should not alter the duty of care owed for an affirmative, active negligent act.
Analysis:
This decision significantly alters premises liability doctrine by creating a crucial distinction between injuries caused by passive conditions of land and those caused by a landowner's active conduct. It aligns Washington law with the modern trend of moving away from rigid, status-based immunities (e.g., for licensees) and toward a general standard of reasonable care based on foreseeability. By imposing a duty of ordinary care for 'activities,' the court expands the potential for landowner liability and reduces the protection previously afforded to hosts when their own actions, rather than the state of their property, injure a guest.
Unlock the full brief for Potts v. Amis